ARTEMIS INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Artemis International Solutions Corporation (formerly Opus360 Corporation) reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against it in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Amended Complaint was brought on behalf of all persons whoacquired securities of the Company between April 7, 2000, and March 20, 2001. Named as defendants in the Amended Complaint were the Company, ten current and former officers and directors of the Company, the underwriters of the Company's initial publicoffering (IPO) and two shareholders who sold stock in a secondary offering concurrent with the IPO.

The Amended Complaint alleged that, among other things, the plaintiff and members of the proposed class were damaged when they acquired securities of the Company because false and misleading information and material omissions in the registration statement relating to the IPO and the secondary offering caused the price of the Company's securities to beartificially inflated. The Amended Complaint asserted violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Damages in unspecified amounts and certain rescission rights were sought.

In October 2001, the Company and all other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. By Opinion and Order dated October 2, 2002, the Court granted all of the motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to serve a second consolidated amended class action complaint.

On October 30, 2002, plaintiffs served their Second Amended Complaint, which contained allegations similar to those in the Amended Complaint. The defendants, including the Company, movedto dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on December 31, 2002. Before the motion was heard, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted and any claims that could have been asserted in this litigation.

On June 18, 2003 the Company announced that it had signed an agreement for the settlement and release of all claims against Artemis and those certain officers and directors and theunderwriters in the Second Amended Complaint. The Court approved the settlement on October 10, 2003. The settlement became final on November 12, 2003. The Company's insurer covered substantially all of the $550,000 in total settlement costs. The settlement should in no event be construed or deemed to be evidence of or an admission or concession on the part of the Company or any individually named defendant officer and director with respect to any claim of any fault or liability orwrongdoing or damage whatsoever.

CITGO PETROLEUM: NY Private Well Owners Commence Four Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------Discovery has yet to commence in four lawsuits filed against CITGO Petroleum Corporation and others in New York state courts.

Two suits were filed by individual property owners, one was filed by a public water supplier, and one is a purported class action on behalf of private well owners in two New York communities.

Dispositive motions are pending in all except the public water supplier case. The defendants' motion to dismiss has been denied and the parties are negotiating a scheduling order in that case. A trial date has not been set.

CITGO PETROLEUM: Trial in IL Contamination Suits Set Fall 2004--------------------------------------------------------------The two lawsuits filed against CITGO Petroleum Corporation in the Illinois State Court for Madison County are scheduled for trial in the fall of 2004.

One of the suits is a purported class action on behalf of Illinois private well owners. The other case was filed by the Village of East Alton alleging contamination of its public water supplies.

CITGO PETROLEUM: NY Court Orders Stay on Several MTBE Lawsuits--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a stay of all methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) lawsuits filed against CITGO Petroleum Corporation not pending in New York

To date, the Company has been served in approximately 32 of these cases in California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Vermont and New York. Most of the lawsuits were filed on behalf of public water suppliers and allege MTBE contamination of public drinking water sources.

The New Hampshire case was filed by the New Hampshire State Attorney General to protect the state's water resources. The lawsuit seeks restoration and remediation, monitoring and testing of all public and private water supplies in the state, as well as compensatory and punitive damages and fines.

All cases are being removed to federal court, concurrent federal declaratory judgment actions are being filed by certain of the defendants in those federal courts, and Tag-Along Notices have been filed with the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) requesting transfer and consolidation of all of the cases to the Southern District of New York as part of MDL 1358, which was created in October 2000 to coordinate similar litigation (now settled) and which remains administratively open.

On December 19, 2003, Judge Shira Scheindlin, to whom MDL 1358 was previously assigned, entered an order requesting that all MTBE cases, other than those pending before her, be stayed until a decision is made by the JPML whether to transfer and consolidate the cases as part of MDL 1358. Since that time, all other recently filed cases have been stayed or are expected to be.

Plaintiffs have moved or will move to remand each of the removed cases. Briefing of the remand motions filed in two of the cases pending before Judge Scheindlin has been completed but no decision has been entered. Briefing of the remand motionsfiled in the actions that have been stayed will not go forward unless and until the stay orders are lifted. No discovery has commenced.

DAOU SYSTEMS: CA Court To Rule on Appeal of Stock Suit Dismissal----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of California is expected to rule on the appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action filed against Daou Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the second quarter of 2004.

On August 24, 1998, August 31, 1998, September 14, 1998 and September 23, 1998, four separate complaints were filed. These suits were later consolidated on January 21, 2000. Their second amended complaint alleges that the Company improperly used the "percentage-of-completion" accounting method for revenue recognition. Claims are pleaded under both the 1933 Securities Act (relating to the Company's initial public offering) and section 10b of the 1934 Securities Act.

The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 13, 1997 and October 28, 1998, but it does not allege specific damage amounts. A Motion to Dismiss the second amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on February 22, 2000. On March 27, 2002, the Court granted the Motion but extended to plaintiffs the opportunity to file a Third Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on May 16, 2002, to which the Company responded with another Motion to Dismiss. The Motion was filed on June 24, 2002 and challenged the legal sufficiency of the allegations. As noted above, on October 15, 2002, the Court granted that Motion, this time with prejudice.

The plaintiffs timely noticed appeal and filed their Appellants' Brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal on April 9, 2003. On July 2, 2003, the Company filed its Respondents' Brief and Cross-Appeal. The Cross-Appeal challenges the trial court's failure to assess whether the complaint complied with applicable pleadings standards. After the Appeal and Cross-Appeal were fully briefed, oral arguments were heard before a panel in February 2004. The Company is currently awaiting the court's decision, which is expected after the second quarter 2004.

On October 7, 1998 and October 15, 1998, two separate complaints were filed in the Superior Court of San Diego County, California. These state court complaints mirror the allegations set forth in the federal complaints. They also assert claims for common law fraud and the violation of certain California statutes. As with their federal counterparts, they do not allege specific damage amounts.

On April 1, 1999, a Consolidated Amended Class Action was filed on behalf of the same state court plaintiffs, and this new complaint alleges the same factual basis as is asserted in thefederal litigation. The state litigation pleads claims for fraud and violations of certain California Corporation Code provisions. By stipulation of the parties and order of the court, this state court litigation was stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss the federal lawsuits as well as the resulting Appeal and Cross-Appeal.

DYNABAZAAR INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Dynabazaar, Inc. reached a proposed settlement for the securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against it and:

The suit was filed on behalf of all other similarly situated persons who purchased the common stock of Dynabazaar between March 14, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The lawsuit alleges thatcertain underwriters of Dynabazaar's initial public offering solicited and received excessive and undisclosed fees and commissions in connection with that offering.

The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a registration statement and prospectus in connection with Dynabazaar's initial public offering, which failed to accurately disclose the amount and nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter defendants.

On October 8, 2002, the Court entered an Order dismissing the claims asserted against certain individual defendants in the consolidated actions, including the claims against Mr. Randall and Mr. Belchers, without any payment from these individuals or the Company. On February 19, 2003, the Court entered an Order dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against the Company under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As a result, the only claims that remain against the Company are those arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1934.

The Company has entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the remaining claims in the litigation. The proposed settlement will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims and will include a release of all claims that were brought or could have been brought against the Company and its present and former directors and officers.

EBS PENSION: Reaches Settlement For Fourth Party Complaint in DE----------------------------------------------------------------EBS Pension LLC reached a settlement for the fourth party complaint filed against it and EBS Litigation, LLC in the United States District Court in Delaware. The suit was brought by the Third-Party Defendants:

(1) David B. Cooper, Jr.,

(2) Julian I. Edison,

(3) Peter A. Edison,

(4) Jane Evans,

(5) Alan A. Sachs,

(6) Craig D. Schnuck, and

(7) Martin Sneider

The suit was filed in the matter of EBS Litigation, L.L.C. v. Barclays Global Investors, N.A., et al. C.A. No. 98-547 SLR. Briefly, the Litigation brought by EBS Litigation alleged that the Third Party Plaintiffs were liable for the return of D&B stock received by them as a distribution from Edison in 1995. The Third-Party Plaintiffs subsequently brought a Third-Party claim in the Litigation alleging that if the Third-Party Plaintiffs were found liable then the Edison Directors are liable to the Third-Party Plaintiffs for all or a part of the recovery.

The Fourth Party Complaint brought by the Edison Directors alleges that if the Edison Directors are found liable in the Third Party claim, then pursuant to Section 5.1(f) of the Plan establishing the Indemnification Reserve, the Company and EBS Litigation are liable to the Edison Directors for all costs and expenses the Edison Directors have incurred or will incur in connection with the Edison Director's defense of the Third Party claim and with the prosecution of their Fourth Party Complaint.

Prior to the Litigation being filed, in February 2003, the District Court hearing the Litigation referred the matter to mediation before a magistrate judge. The mediation took place on March 28, 2003. The mediation involves all claims involved in the Litigation, as well as, the Fourth Party Complaint indemnification claims brought by the Edison Directors against the Company and EBS Litigation pursuant to indemnification provisions in the Debtor's Amended Joint Plan or Reorganization.

There can be no assurances as to the outcome of any of the claims as a result of the mediation, or the liability of the Company, if any. The Fourth Party Complaint was also referred to Mediation. The Mediation was continued at a mediation conference on August 11, 2003. The mediation process concluded with the parties reaching a proposed settlement.

On January 29, 2004, Judge Robinson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware approved the notice of settlement. The notice of pendency of class action settlement was mailed to the members of the class on February 12, 2004. The hearing on the proposed settlement is set for March 31, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 6B at the United States Courthouse for the District of Delaware.

GENTEK INC.: DE Court Approves Settlement of Worker Injury Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Pennsylvania approved the settlement of the individual and class action lawsuits filed against Gentek, Inc. by employees of its Sunoco refinery in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania.

In April 1998, approximately 40 employees (and their respective spouses) of the Sunoco refinery in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania,filed lawsuits in the Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, against General Chemical Corporation alleging that sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide releases from the Company's Delaware Valley facility caused various respiratory, pulmonary and other injuries. Unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 for each plaintiff were sought. Active discovery has taken place and the cases were initially set for trial in March 2003.

In addition, on September 24, 1999 the same attorneys that filed the April 1998 individual actions also filed a purported class action complaint against the Company, titled Whisnant vs. General Chemical Corporation, (in the Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Pennsylvania), on behalf of more than 1,000current and former employees of the Sunoco Plant.

The complaint alleges that releases of sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide caused injuries to the plaintiffs, and sought, among other things, to establish a medical monitoring fund for plaintiffs. In May 2002, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the case to proceed as a class action. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of that decision.

Both the individual actions and the class action proceedings were stayed as a result of the Company's bankruptcy filing. The bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay for the limited purpose of allowing the parties to consummate a settlementagreement that has been reached to resolve the individual and class action lawsuits.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Company and its insurer will pay a total of $2,095,000 ($1.3 million of which will be paid by the Company's insurer) following final approval of the settlement by the trial court. The settlement received preliminary approval by the trial court and notice was sent to the class members. Class members had until January 23, 2004 to opt out of theSettlement, however, that deadline has been extended; approximately 26 people have submitted opt out requests, but approximately 4 reconsidered and opted-in before the extended deadline. The settlement will become final after the exhaustion of all appellate and termination rights, at which time payment will be made.

GENTEK INC.: Automatic Stay on CA Personal Injury Suits Lifted--------------------------------------------------------------The automatic stay on litigation against Gentek, Inc. over its Richmond, California facility has been lifted, allowing the suits to proceed in California State Court.

Lawyers claiming to represent more than 47,000 persons have filed approximately 24 lawsuits in several counties in California state court (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco superior courts), making claims against General Chemical Corporation and, in some cases, a third party arising out of a May 1, 2001 release of sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide from the Company's Richmond, California sulfuric acid facility.

The first case was filed in 2001 and all subsequent cases were filed from March through July 2002. On May 1, 2002, a class action lawsuit arising out of the same facts was also filed. Some of the complaints also allege damages arising out of a separate alleged release of sulfur trioxide from the Richmond facility on November 29, 2001.

The lawsuits claim various damages for alleged injuries, including, without limitation, claims for personal injury, emotional distress, medical monitoring, nuisance, loss of consortium and punitive damages. The Company filed a petition for coordination to consolidate all of the state court cases before a single judge, which was tentatively granted, but the Company filed its bankruptcy petition before the final order was entered. The state court cases were stayed as a result of the Filing.

Approximately 73,000 proofs of claim were submitted in the bankruptcy proceedings on behalf of the Richmond claimants, seeking damages for the May 1, 2001 and/or November 29, 2001 releases. A preliminary review of the claimant list indicates that the claimants include most of the plaintiffs in the statecourt cases, plus several thousand duplicates and some additional claimants. In addition, one class proof of claim was submitted. A motion for class certification was filed but the motion was later withdrawn. The Company filed a motion to lift the automatic stay and discharge injunction to allow liquidationof the claims to proceed in California State Court. That motion was granted upon stipulation of the parties.

H&M OF NEW YORK: Recalls 6,300 Water Bottles For Choking Hazard---------------------------------------------------------------H&M is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 6,300 Water Bottles. The pull-up, black plastic drinking spout can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.

These are black plastic water bottles in green canvas sports holders. "H&M" is written on the bottle and the strap of theholder. The holder has a zip-up side, zipper pocket, a pocket made with netting and an insulated silver lining.

H&M clothing stores nationwide distributed the water bottles as a free premium with purchase of children's wear between February 2004 and March 5, 2004.

For more information, call the Company by Phone: (877) 439-6261 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit their Website: http://www.hm.com.

Commencing in February 2002, approximately 15 putative securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors inthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofTexas. These class actions (together with subsequently filedactions) were consolidated into one case, "Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, On Behalf ofItself and All Others Similarly Situated, Civil Action No. H-02-0410," naming as defendants the Company, Michael J. McGhan, William S. Goldberg and Michael A. O'Connor.

The complaints asserted various claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs, including legal fees. The court entered an order appointing Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits Trust and others as lead plaintiffs on January 7, 2003 and appointed Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP as lead counsel.

On September 5, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they sought relief under Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act against Hanover, certain former officers and directors and its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, on behalf of themselves and the class of persons who purchased Hanover securities between May 4, 1999 and December 23, 2002.

In the securities action, the plaintiffs allege generally that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making misstatements and omissions in Hanover's periodic filings with the SEC as well as in other public statements in connection with the transactions that were restated in 2002.

Commencing in February 2002, four derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Two derivative lawsuits were filed in state district court for Harris County, Texas, one was non-suited and the second was removed to Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas. One derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

These derivative lawsuits, which were filed by certain of the Company's shareholders purportedly on behalf of Hanover, alleged, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders in connection with certain of the transactions that were restated in 2002, and sought unspecified amounts of damages, interest and costs, including legal fees.

The derivative lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas were consolidated on August 19and August 26, 2002 into the Harbor Finance Partners derivative lawsuit. With that consolidation, the pending derivative lawsuits were:

On and after March 26, 2003, three plaintiffs filed separate putative class actions against Hanover, certain named individuals and other purportedly unknown defendants, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The alleged class was composed of persons who participated in or were beneficiaries of The Hanover Companies Retirement and Savings Plan, which was established by Hanover pursuant to Section 401(k) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

The purported class action sought relief under ERISA based upon Hanover's and the individual defendants' alleged mishandling ofHanover's 401(k) Plan. The three ERISA putative class actions are entitled:

(i) Kirkley v. Hanover, Case No. H-03-1155;

(ii) Angleopoulos v. Hanover, Case No. H-03-1064; and

(iii) Freeman v. Hanover, Case No. H-03-1095

On August 1, 2003, the three ERISA class actions were consolidated into the "Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits Trust" federal securities class action. On October 9, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs in the ERISA class action against Hanover, Michael McGhan, Michael O'Connor and William Goldberg, which included the same allegations as indicated above, and was filed on behalf of themselves and a class of persons who purchased or held Hanover securities in their 401(k) Plan between May 4, 1999 and December 23, 2002.

These actions alleged generally that, in connection with the transactions that were restated in 2002, the Company and certain individuals acting as fiduciaries of Hanover's 401(k) Plan breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants by offering Hanover common stock as an investment option, failing to provide material information to plan participants regarding the suitability of Hanover common stock as an investment alternative, failing to monitor the performance of plan fiduciaries, and failing to provide material informationto other fiduciaries.

On October 23, 2003, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which settled all of the claims underlying the putative securities class action, the putative ERISA class action and the shareholder derivative actions described above. The terms of the settlement provided for the Company to make a cash payment of approximately $30 million (of which $26.7 million was funded by payments from Hanover's directors and officers insurance carriers), issue 2.5 million shares of the Company's common stock, and issue a contingent note with a principal amount of $6.7 million. The note is payable, together with accrued interest, on March 31, 2007 but will be extinguished (with no money owing under it) if the Company's common stock trades at or above the average price of $12.25 per share for 15 consecutive trading days at any time between March 31, 2004 and March 31, 2007.

In addition, upon the occurrence of a change of control that involves the Company, if the change of control or shareholder approval of the change of control occurs before February 9, 2005, which is twelve months after final court approval of the settlement, the Company will be obligated to contribute an additional $3 million to the settlement fund.

As part of the settlement, the Company also agreed to implement corporate governance enhancements, including allowing shareholders owning more than 1% but less than 10% of its outstanding common stock to participate in the process to appoint two independent directors to the Company's board of directors (pursuant to which on February 4, 2004 the Company appointed Margaret K. Dorman and Stephen M. Pazuk to its board of directors) and making certain changes to its code of conduct.

GKH Investments, L.P. and GKH Private Limited (collectively GKH) which, as of December 31, 2003, together owned approximately 10% of Hanover's outstanding common stock and which sold shares in the Company's March 2001 secondary offering of common stock, are parties to the settlement and have agreed to settle claims against them that arise out of that offering as well as other potential securities, ERISA, and derivative claims. The terms of the settlement provide for GKH to transfer 2.5 million sharesof Hanover common stock from their holdings or from other sources to the settlement fund.

On October 24, 2003, the parties moved the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and soughtpermission to provide notice to the potentially affected personsand to set a date for a final hearing to approve the proposedsettlement. On December 5, 2003, the court held a hearing and granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and, among other things, ordered that notice be provided to appropriate persons and set the date for the final hearing. The final hearing was held on February 6, 2004, and no objections to the settlement or requests to be excluded from the terms of the settlement had been received prior to the deadline set by the court.

On February 9, 2004, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered three Orders and Final Judgments, approving the settlement on the terms agreed upon in the Stipulation of Settlement with respect to all of the claims described above including the dismissal of each of the actions other than the Coffelt Family derivative action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court. The court also entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the plans of allocation with respect to each action, as well as an Order and Final Judgment approving the schedule of attorneys' fees for counsel for the settling plaintiffs.

The time in which these Orders and Final Judgments may be appealed expired on March 10, 2004 without any appeal being lodged. In addition, on March 16, 2004, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the Coffelt Family derivative action. The settlement has therefore become final and will be implemented according to its terms. In March 2004, the Company issued and delivered to the escrow agent for the settlement fund 2.5 million shares of Hanover common stock, as required by the settlement. The Company's independent auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, is not a party to the settlement and remains a party to the securities class action.

INTELLI-CHECK INC.: Reaches Settlement For NJ Securities Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Intelli-check, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed in the United States District Court for New Jersey on behalf of short-sellers of the Company's stock, who allegedly suffered losses because of the rise in the price of Company stock.

In July 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In July 2003 the court granted the motion to dismiss the lawsuit. However, it did allow the Plaintiff to re-plead some of the claims. The Plaintiff had filed an amended complaintpertaining to certain of the pleadings.

Plaintiff has withdrawn the amended lawsuit with prejudice. The settlement did not affect the Company's results of operations, balance sheet or financial condition, it said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Issues Injunction V. Stock Fraud----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Preliminary Injunction continuing a freeze of about $2.7 million in the accounts of certain Unknown Purchasers of the Call Options of InVision Technologies, Inc.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint alleges that the frozen funds result from suspicious trading in call options of InVision Technologies, Inc. in the days immediately prior to a March 15, 2004, joint announcement by General Electric Company (GE) and InVision, a manufacturer of explosive-detection systems, that GE had agreed to acquire InVision in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $900 million, or $50 per share of InVision common stock.

The Preliminary Injunction was issued in the Commission's previously filed civil injunctive action, SEC v. One or More Unknown Purchasers of Call Options for the Common Stock of InVision Technologies, Inc., 04 Civ. 02037 (WHP) filed March 16, 2004.

The frozen proceeds are being held in accounts of UBS Securities LLC, a U.S. brokerage firm and resulted from InVision call option purchase orders that came to UBS Securities through certain of its European affiliates. In addition to the freeze provisions, the Preliminary Injunction continues the Temporary Restraining Order's provisions requiring those who purchased the InVision call options through the UBS Securities accounts to identify themselves, and prohibiting the defendants from destroying documents. To date, no defendant has come forward to contact the Commission staff or the District Court.

Additionally, on March 31, 2004, the Commission amended its complaint in the civil injunctive action to include additional suspicious trading in InVision call options immediately ahead of the joint GE/InVision announcement. The additional trading took place in accounts of Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., a U.S. brokerage firm, and resulted from purchase orders for InVision call options placed through a Deutsche Bank Securities European affiliate. These trades included orders to buy 1,000 April 45 InVision call options on March 12, 2004, the trading day immediately prior to the GE/InVision joint announcement, at prices ranging between $1.25 and $1.50 per contract. The positions were sold the next trading day, at an average price of $4.25 per contract, for a one-trading-day profit of approximately $286,728.

On March 31, 2004, the District Court issued a second Temporary Restraining Order in the Commission's action, this time ordering a freeze of proceeds from the InVision option trading in the Deutsche Bank Securities accounts, requiring those who purchased those InVision call options to identify themselves, imposing an expedited discovery schedule and prohibiting the defendants from destroying documents.

LANDACORP INC.: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss SPHS Merger Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the securities class action filed against Landacorp, Inc. in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia over the Company's merger with a wholly-owned subsidiary of SHPS Holdings, Inc. (SHPS), where the Company's shareholders will receive $3.09 per share in cash, and the Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary of SHPS Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates.

The suit, filed on behalf of the stockholders of the Company, charges the Company and certain current and former members of its Board of Directors with breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with approving the Merger. The complaint seeks declaratory relief and injunctive relief with respect to the Merger, including an injunction preventing consummation of the Merger. The complaint also seeks unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, and fees and costs.

LIQUID AUDIO: Committee Approves NY Securities Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------A special committee of Liquid Audio, Inc.'s board of directors approved the proposed settlement of the securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its former officers and directors, and various of the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) and secondary offering.

The suit, styled "In re Liquid Audio, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, CV-6611," generally alleges that various investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in the Company's IPO and secondary offering of securities.

The plaintiffs brought claims for violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws against those underwriters, and also against the Company and certain of its former directors and officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 8, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and 250 other companies. All of these "IPO allocation" securities class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New York have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings as In re Liquid Audio, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the actions. In October 2002, such directors and officers were dismissed without prejudice. A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in exchange for a contingent payment to be made by the issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain claims. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.

NATIONAL MEDICAL: Administrative Judge Sanctions Ex-Controller--------------------------------------------------------------Robert W. Armstrong, III, formerly controller of National Medical Care (NMC), a former subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. has been sanctioned after a hearing before an administrative law judge.

Mr. Armstrong was sanctioned for his role in W.R. Grace's scheme to manipulate NMC's reported earnings to achieve predetermined targets by accruing and then reducing reserves that were not in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in order to offset higher-than-expected revenues or make up shortfalls. W.R. Grace's quarterly and annual reports, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the years 1991 through 1995, included financial statements that reported the manipulated earnings.

The law judge concluded that Mr. Armstrong, although a reluctant participant in the scheme, nonetheless violated and caused violations of the antifraud, books and records, and reporting provisions of the federal securities laws and ordered him to cease and desist from such violations. The law judge dismissed additional charges brought pursuant to an SEC rule under which it can sanction accountants who appear or practice before it.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in entering into the proposed transaction with affiliates of ValueAct Capital. The complaints seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

PC CONNECTION: Enters Settlement Discussions for Consumer Suit--------------------------------------------------------------PC Connections, Inc. is in settlement discussions with the plaintiff in the consumer class action filed in the Superior Court of California against it and numerous other computer-related manufacturers and resellers. The suit alleges that the defendants' listed memory specifications for MP3 players are misleading.

The Company primarily obtain such specifications from the manufacturers, and expect to be indemnified by them, although it may be liable for some amount of damages. The Company may also be required to modify the way MP3 player memory specifications are set forth in our advertisements, it stated in a regulatory filing. No specific amount has been claimed as damages.

PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Directors Seek Resolution of NY Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------Philips International Realty Corporation's board of directors is seeking resolution of a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its directors. The complaint alleged a number of improprieties concerning the pending plan of liquidation of the Company.

On November 9, 2000, the Court, ruling from the bench, denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. This bench ruling was followed by a written order dated November 30, 2000 wherein the Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate either that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its case or that there were sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of its case to make it fair ground for litigation.

On February 5, 2002 the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class action certification. The plaintiff may elect to proceed with its claims on its own now that class certification has been denied. The plaintiff also has asserted derivative claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company.

On February 28, 2002, the Company announced that the plaintiff had sought permission from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to appeal the denial of class certification. In order for plaintiff to have obtained permission to appeal, it had to demonstrate that the denial of class certification effectively terminated the litigation and that the District Court's decision was an abuse of its discretion. The Company opposed plaintiff'sapplication. If the Court of Appeals granted plaintiff's request, plaintiff would then have been able to appeal the District Court's denial of class certification. On May 28, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered that the plaintiff's petition to appeal the District Court's denial of class certification also be denied.

The Board of Directors of the Company is currently seeking final resolution of this pending class action, and recovery of $2.1 million expended by the Company in defense of this action pursuant of the terms of its directors' and officers' insurance policy.

REUNION INDUSTRIES: Faces Lawsuits Over Dealings with SFSC in CA----------------------------------------------------------------Reunion Industries, Inc. continues to face several class actions filed in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County California, relating to loans that the Company received from Stanwich Financial Services Corporation (SFSC).

The Company was initially named as a defendant in fifteen consolidated lawsuits filed in December 2000 or early 2001 in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, California, three of which are purported class actions asserted on behalf of approximately 200 payees. The plaintiffs in these suits, except one, are structured settlement payees to whom SFSC is indebted. The Company and SFSC are related parties.

In addition to the Company, there are numerous defendants in these suits, including SFSC, Mr. Charles E. Bradley, Sr., who is Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company and the sole shareholder of SFSC's parent, several major financial institutions and certain others. All of these suits arise out of the inability of SFSC to make structured settlement payments when due. Pursuant to the court's order, plaintiffs in the purported class actions and plaintiffs in the individual cases actions filed a model complaint. Except for the class allegations, the two model complaints are identical. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, restoration of certain alleged trust assets, restitution and attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs in one of the suits are former owners of a predecessor of SFSC and current operators of a competing structured settlement business. These plaintiffs claim that their business and reputations have been damaged by SFSC's structured settlement defaults, seek damages for unfair competition and purport to sue on behalf of the payees.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company borrowed funds from SFSC and has not repaid these loans. The plaintiffs' theories of liability against the Company are that it is the alter ego of SFSC and Mr. Bradley and that the Company received fraudulent transfers of SFSC's assets. The plaintiffs also assert direct claims against the Company for inducing breach of contract andaiding and abetting an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by SFSC.

On May 25, 2001, SFSC filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut. SFSC filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case against the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that the structured settlement trust assets are the property of the bankruptcy estate. On July 16, 2001, the bankruptcy court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the plaintiffs from prosecuting their claimsagainst the Company, SFSC, Mr. Bradley and others. As a result of this restraining order of the bankruptcy court, the Company entered a standstill agreement with the plaintiffs on August 22, 2001. Pursuant to the standstill agreement and the stipulation of the parties to the SFSC bankruptcy case, the plaintiffs, while not agreeing to waive or release their direct claims against the Company for damages, agreed to cease and desist the prosecution of their claims against the Company until no earlier than sixty days following service of written notice to the Company stating that they have elected to unilaterally terminate the standstill.

Plaintiffs filed second amended model complaints in the class actions and individual cases on August 24, 2001. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on February 13, 2002 and certified a class consisting of unpaid structured settlement payees. Both model complaints allege causes of action against the Company for interference with contract and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. However, pursuant to the standstill agreement, the plaintiffs are taking no action to prosecute these claims against the Company at this time.

Certain of the financial institution defendants have assertedcross-complaints against the Company for implied and express indemnity and contribution and negligence. The Company denies the allegations of the plaintiffs and the cross-complainant financial institutions and intends to vigorously defend against these actions and cross-actions.

A settlement (the "State Court Settlement") has been reached among the plaintiffs and the following defendants (collectively, the "Financial Institution Defendants") in the state court action:

(1) Bankers Trust Co.,

(2) U.S. Trust Co.,

(3) Wells Fargo Bank,

(4) Bank of America,

(5) Bear Stearns and Settlement Services, Inc.

Under the settlement, the Financial Institution Defendants would pay the plaintiffs $90,630,969 and Bankers Trust would receive an assignment of the claims of the plaintiffs and the other Financial Institution Defendants against the Company and certain other defendants.

In the SFSC bankruptcy, the Company and certain others have entered into a settlement (the "Bankruptcy Settlement") with SFSC and Bankers Trust (for itself and as expected assignee of the claims of the state court plaintiffs and the other Financial Institution Defendants). The Bankruptcy Settlement, which has been approved by the Bankruptcy Court, is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including the order entered by the court in the state court action approving the State Court Settlement becoming final.

Under the Bankruptcy Settlement, the Company would be obligated to pay to SFSC $4.6 million (less a setoff of approximately $310,000) by December 31, 2006, plus interest at 10% per annum from the date on which SFSC's Plan of Reorganization becomes effective and would be released from all claims that have been made or could have been made by the plaintiffs and the Financial Institution Defendants in the state court action and by SFSC in its bankruptcy proceeding. The settlement amount would not constitute a new liability of the Company, as the settlement relates to indebtedness that is, and has been for some time, included as a liability on the Company's balance sheet.

REVLON INC.: NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement Deemed Final----------------------------------------------------------------The settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Revlon, Inc. and REV Holdings, Inc. is deemed final after no appeal was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit also names as defendants certain of the Company's present and former officers and directors.

The suit alleges among other things, violations of Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and limits the alleged class to security purchasers during the period from October 29, 1997 through October 1, 1998.

On June 30, 2003, the court approved the settlement agreement that was executed in January 2003, which provides that the defendants will obtain complete releases from the participating members of the alleged class, and the period to appeal this decision has expired.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 27, 2000, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Dan Gavish, Tricia Fontan and Walter Fontan individually and allegedly on behalf of all others similarly situated who purchased the securities of Revlon, Inc. and REV Holdings Inc. between October 2, 1998 and September 30, 1999.

In November 2001, plaintiffs amended their complaint. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that Revlon, Inc., certain of its present and former officers and directors and REV Holdings Inc. violated, among other things, Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act.

In December 2001, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In light of the Insurance Settlement, the Company does not expect to incur any further expense in this matter, it said in a regulatory filing.

SAUDER WOODWORKING: Recalls 592T TV/VCR Carts For Injury Hazard---------------------------------------------------------------Sauder Woodworking Co. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 592,000 TV/VCR carts. The carts can tip over and injure or kill children and adults when the cart and the television fall.

The Company has received 13 reports of these carts tipping over. The firm received a report of the death of a 19-month-old girl in North Wales, Pennsylvania, who suffered a fractured skull when the cart and television fell on her. There were four reports of additional injuries involving children and adults. One report involved a skull fracture to a child who recovered and three reports involved bumps and bruises.

These TV/VCR carts were sold in a kit to be assembled by consumers. They are identical in design and construction, but not color. One model is a light-colored oak finish and the other model is a dark-colored cherry finish. The TV/VCR carts are about 29.5-inches wide, 18-inches deep and 27-inches high. The carts are equipped with a top shelf intended to support up to a 27-inch television, a middle shelf intended to hold a VCR and a lower storage area intended to hold VCR tapes and equipment. The products were provided with shelves for holding VHS tapes that were to be installed on the inside of the two hinged doors enclosing the lower storage area. The recalled carts have four removable casters attached to each bottom corner of the cart. The TV/VCR carts included in the recall are models 2655 and 2755. The model number is not on the cart, but it is on the instruction booklet that came with the cart.

Department, discount and home electronic stores nationwide soldthese TV/VCR carts from January 1993 through December 1999 for about $100.

For more information and to order the free repair kit, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 800-4590 anytime, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sauder.com

SPORTSLINE.COM: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------SportsLine.com, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to dismiss the class action filed against it, its chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The suit, styled "In re SportsLine.com Securities Litigation, Master File No. 03-61849-CIV-MIDDLEBROOKS," was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between January 30, 2001 and September 25, 2003; and seeks money damages in unspecified amounts and litigation expenses including attorneys' and experts' fees. The essence of the allegations in the complaint is that the Company intentionally or recklessly made false or misleading statements in its previously issued consolidated financial statements which were subsequently restated due primarily to its failure to properly recognize non-cash compensation expense relating to certain option grants. The plaintiffs contend that such statements or omissions caused the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated.

SPORTSLINE.COM: Shareholder Launches Derivative Suit in S.D. FL---------------------------------------------------------------A SportsLine.com, Inc. shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of the Company against its chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer and each member of the Company's Board of Directors as of September 25, 2003.

The plaintiff alleges violations of Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the payment of incentive compensation by certain of the named defendants and breaches of fiduciary duties and claims for contribution and indemnification against all the named defendants.

TELECOMMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Subscribers Lodge Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Telecommunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc. face a class action filed in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico by six residential subscribers and eight business service subscribers under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico Class Action Act of 1971.

The plaintiffs claim that the Company's charges for touchtone service are not based on cost, and are therefore in violation of the Act. They have requested that the Court issue an Order certifying the case as a class action, designate the plaintiffs as representative of the class, find that the charges are illegal, and order the Company to reimburse every subscriber for excess payments made since September 1996.

On December 30, 2003, the Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc. (wholly-owned by the company) filed its corresponding answer to the complaint and requested the dismissal of the same based on the grounds that the claim is not a legitimate class action suit. On February 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed their first set of interrogatories and request for admissions as to initiate a discovery proceeding. PRTC will ask the Court that the threshold issue to decide first must be the class certification.

UNITED LIBERTY: Enters Initial Mediation For Consumer Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------United Liberty Life Insurance Company has completed initial mediation for the class action filed against it in the Court of Common Pleas for Butler County, Ohio by two policyholders in June 2000.

The complaint refers to a particular class of life insurance policies that the Company issued over a period of years ending around 1971. It alleges that the Company dividend payments on these policies from 1993 through 1999 were less than the required amount. It does not specify the amount of the alleged underpayment but implies a maximum of about $850,000.

The plaintiffs also allege that the Company is liable to pay punitive damages, also in an unspecified amount, for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the plaintiffs in relation to the dividends. The action has been certified as a class action on behalf of all policyholders who were Ohio residents and whose policies were still in force in 1993.

The Company has denied the material allegations of the complaint. Pre-trial discovery is continuing. The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment, which has been completely briefed and argued and awaits decision by the Court.

At the Company's request, an initial mediation session has been completed and negotiations are continuing. As a pre-requisite for the mediation, the Company offered to settle the matter for payments over time, which would include attorneys' fees, and which would be contingent upon an exchange or reformation of the insurance policies currently owned by the members of the class.

UNITED STATES: Seven Americans Commence Suit Over "No-Fly" List---------------------------------------------------------------The United States government faces a class action filed by seven American citizens, opposing the "no-fly" list, which is meant to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes, Reuters reports.

The plaintiffs allege they have been wrongly placed on the U.S. Transportation Security Administration's "no-fly" list because their names are similar or identical to names on the list. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, demands that the government remove their names so that they can travel on planes without being interrogated and searched. The suit also names as defendants the US Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration.

VAXGEN INC.: Expects CA Securities Lawsuits To Be Consolidated--------------------------------------------------------------Vaxgen, Inc. expects the securities class actions filed against it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to be consolidated. The suits also name as defendants Chief Executive Officer Lance K. Gordon and former President Donald P. Francis.

The suits uniformly allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of class of persons who purchased Company securities between August 6, 2002 and February 26, 2003. The suits allege that the defendants misled investors about the progress of certain clinical trials and its future manufacturing and marketing

WORLD AIRWAYS: Faces Seven Suits Over Charter Flights To Nigeria----------------------------------------------------------------World Airways, Inc. faces seven purported class action complaints arising out of the discontinuance of charter flights upon the expiration of the Company's obligation to provide services under an air services agreement.

Four suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, one in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, and one in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Four individual complaints were also filed - one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, one small claims action in New York, one small claims action in New Jersey, and one small claims action in California.

The Company had operated the charter flights between cities inthe United States and Lagos, Nigeria for Ritetime Aviation andTravel Services, Inc. The Company's obligation to perform air services for Ritetime ended with the last chartered flight on December 30, 2003.

From the allegations made by the various plaintiffs, it appearsthat Ritetime continued to sell tickets for flights purportedlyscheduled to depart after the expiration of the Company's contractual obligations for air services. The plaintiffs purport to act for themselves and on behalf of other persons who held tickets issued by Ritetime for the non-contracted flights. Ritetime is also named as a defendant in each of these lawsuits. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, punitive and/or treble damagesand costs and expenses, including attorneys fees, based onvarious legal theories including breach of contract, fraud,negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, illegal/excesstax and violations of U.S. federal laws and regulations governing air transportation and of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Statute.

The Company is cooperating with the DOT in its inquiry concerning this matter. During March 2004, Ritetime filed a Demand to Arbitrate in Peachtree City, Georgia, and subsequently the Company responded and filed a counterclaim. The Company believes that the allegations against it are without merit.

VAXGEN INC.: Trial in Shareholder Derivative Suit Set March 2005----------------------------------------------------------------Trial for the consolidated shareholder derivative suit filed against certain of Vaxgen, Inc.'s current and former directors is set for March 21,2005 in the California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The suit names as defendants:

(1) Lance K. Gordon,

(2) Randall L-W. Caudill,

(3) William D. Young,

(4) Donald P. Francis,

(5) Phillip W. Berman,

(6) David W. Beier,

(7) Stephen C. Francis,

(8) Paul Allen and

(9) Vulcan Ventures, Inc.

Plaintiff purports to seek recovery on behalf of the Company and allege that the Vulcan Defendants sold shares of Company stock while in possession of material non-public information about the Company. Plaintiffs, purportedly suing on behalf of VaxGen, assert claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, mismanagement, waste and unjust enrichment, and against the Vulcan Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and insider trading.

The Company Directors and the Vulcan Defendants filed demurrerschallenging the demand futility allegations in the consolidated complaint. The Court overruled the defendants' demurrers and the parties have entered the discovery phase of the litigation.

New Securities Fraud Cases

AGCO CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in GA---------------------------------------------------------------Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of AGCO Corporation ("AGCO") (NYSE:AG) common stock during the period between February 6, 2003 and February 4, 2004.

The complaint charges AGCO and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AGCO is primarily engaged in the manufacture and distribution of agricultural equipment and related replacement parts worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused AGCO's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. As a result of this inflation, AGCO was able to complete a private offering, raising proceeds of $150 million on or about December 15, 2003.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the statements defendants issued during the Class Period were each materially false and misleading when made as they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were then known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (i) the Company had improperly recorded revenue on its "bill and hold" transactions where risk did not pass to the customer; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenue and income recognition deviated from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and was therefore materially false and misleading.

On February 5, 2004, less than two months after the private placement, the Company issued a press release which stated that the Company's accounting practices were under investigation by the SEC. The stock dropped below $17 per share on this news.

For more details, contact William S. Lerach by Mail: 401 B. St., Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 800-449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com

EL PASO: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. Texas-------------------------------------------------------------Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against El Paso Corporation (NYSE:EP) and its officers was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of purchasers of El Paso securities between March 30, 2003 and February 17, 2004.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading statements which artificially inflated the stock.

For more details, contact Mark D. Smilow, James E. Tullman, or David C. Katz, by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.co

On April 2, 2004, five plaintiffs filed a class action complaint under ERISA on behalf of the Shell Retirement Funds and the thousands of the participants and beneficiaries of each whose retirement accounts held securities in the Plans' Royal Dutch Stock Fund from at least December 3, 1999 through and including January 9, 2004 and who suffered losses due to defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

Plaintiffs allege that at least during this period, instead of carefully observing their fiduciary duties to act solely in the Plans' and the Class's best interests, defendants breached their fiduciary duties by systematically and improperly manipulating the financial results of the combined oil companies, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company, in direct contravention of generally accepted accounting principles("GAAP") and then misrepresenting such financial results to the public and Class members.

Indeed, defendants deliberately violated accounting rules andguidelines relating to oil and gas reserves which resulted in shocking and unprecedented overstatements and the eventual disclosures which materially affected the market and drove down the value of the shares held in the Plans' Royal Dutch Stock Fund-all to the detriment of the Class. On February 19, 2004, Royal Dutch/Shell announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission had begun a formal investigation into the Company's surprise restatement of its oil and natural gas reserves. Plaintiffs allege that defendants are liable under ERISA for such breaches of fiduciary duty.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein by Mail: Scott + Scott, LLC is located at 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT by phone: 860/537-3818 by Fax: 860/537-4432 or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com.

TITAN CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CA-------------------------------------------------------------Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of The Titan Corporation (NYSE: TTN) common stock during the period betweenJuly 24, 2003 and March 22, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Titan, Gene Ray, Mark Sopp, and Deanna Lund violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that defendants made material misstatements with respect to the Company's financial results.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and indicate the following in defendants' effort to get its merger with Lockheed Martin Corporation approved by shareholders and various regulators:

(1) that foreign consultants for Titan were engaging in questionable and potentially illegal activities;

(2) that foreign consultants for Titan made improper payments to foreign government officials in violation of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;

(3) that Titan improperly accounted for the funds used in these payments; and

(4) as a result, Titan's improper accounting for such payments allowed Titan to enter into a definitive merger agreement with Lockheed Martin.

On February 13, 2004, Titan announced that representatives of Lockheed Martin and Titan recently initiated meetings with the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to advise of an internal review relating to certain agreements between Titan and international consultants and related payments in foreign countries.

On March 5, 2004, Lockheed Martin announced that it had learned of allegations that improper payments were made, or items of value were provided, by consultants for Titan or its subsidiaries to foreign officials. Also on March 5, 2004, Titan confirmed that it had learned of allegations that improper payments were made, or items of value were provided, by consultants for the company or its subsidiaries to foreign officials. The allegations were identified as part of an ongoing review conducted with Lockheed Martin of payments to Titan's international consultants in connection with the proposed acquisition of Titan by Lockheed Martin. News of this shocked the market with shares of Titan falling $1.82 per share to close at $19.11 per share.

On March 22, 2004, The Wall Street Journal reported that internal investigators of both Titan and Lockheed Martin had found that Titan had made potentially improper payments oversees. According to the article, Titan made millions of dollars in suspicious payments, some as recently as last year,while competing for business in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Moreover, the article reported that the Company was scheduled to hold talks with the Department of Justice about a possible plea agreement. On news of this shares of Titan fell $0.43 per share to close at $19.73 per share.

TITAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in CA--------------------------------------------------------------Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of The Titan Corporation (NYSE: TTN) from July 24, 2003 through March 22, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Titan, Gene Ray, Mark Sopp, and Deanna Lund violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that defendants made material misstatements with respect to the Company's financial results.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and indicate the following in defendants' effort to get its merger with Lockheed Martin Corporation approved by shareholders and various regulators:

(1) that foreign consultants for Titan were engaging in questionable and potentially illegal activities;

(2) that foreign consultants for Titan made improper payments to foreign government officials in violation of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;

(3) that Titan improperly accounted for the funds used in these payments; and

(4) as a result, Titan's improper accounting for such payments allowed Titan to enter into a definitive merger agreement with Lockheed Martin.

On February 13, 2004, Titan announced that representatives of Lockheed Martin and Titan recently initiated meetings with the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to advise of an internal review relating to certain agreements between Titan and international consultants and related payments in foreign countries.

On March 5, 2004, Lockheed Martin announced that it had learned of allegations that improper payments were made, or items of value were provided, by consultants for Titan or its subsidiaries to foreign officials. Also on March 5, 2004, Titan confirmed that it had learned of allegations that improper payments were made, or items of value were provided, by consultants for the company or its subsidiaries to foreign officials. The allegations were identified as part of an ongoing review conducted with Lockheed Martin of payments to Titan's international consultants in connection with the proposed acquisition of Titan by Lockheed Martin. News of this shocked the market with shares of Titan falling $1.82 per share to close at $19.11 per share.

On March 22, 2004, The Wall Street Journal reported that internal investigators of both Titan and Lockheed Martin had found that Titan had made potentially improper payments oversees. According to the article, Titan made millions of dollars in suspicious payments, some as recently as last year,while competing for business in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Moreover, the article reported that the Company was scheduled to hold talks with the Department of Justice about a possible plea agreement. On news of this shares of Titan fell $0.43 per share to close at $19.73 per share.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.